Move the test back, since it doesn't work in 1.2.1 mode

This is a test for unnamed kernels, so if we don't have unnamed kernels,
it isn't meaningful.

Author: Erich Keane

sycl/test/regression/unnamed-lambda-split-order.cpp

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+// RUN: %clangxx -fsycl -fsycl-unnamed-lambda %s -o %t.out
+#include "CL/sycl.hpp"
+
+// This validates the case where using a lambda in a kernel in a different order
+// than the lexical order of the lambdas. In a previous implementation of
+// __builtin_sycl_unique_stable_name this would result in the value of the
+// builtin being invalidated, causing a compile error. The redesigned
+// implementation should no longer have a problem with this pattern.
+void out_of_order_decls() {
+  auto w = [](auto i) {};
+  sycl::queue q;
+  q.parallel_for(10, [](auto i) {});
+  q.parallel_for(10, w);
+}

sycl/test/regression/unnamed-lambda.cpp

@@ -33,15 +33,3 @@ void bar(cl::sycl::queue queue) {
     cgh.parallel_for<class K2>(cl::sycl::range<2>{1024,768}, f);
   });
 }
-
-// This validates the case where using a lambda in a kernel in a different order
-// than the lexical order of the lambdas. In a previous implementation of
-// __builtin_sycl_unique_stable_name this would result in the value of the
-// builtin being invalidated, causing a compile error. The redesigned
-// implementation should no longer have a problem with this pattern.
-void out_of_order_decls() {
-  auto w = [](auto i) {};
-  sycl::queue q;
-  q.parallel_for(10, [](auto i) {});
-  q.parallel_for(10, w);
-}